The morality of political correctness is a layer of social armor that developed spontaneously from the character structure of leftist intellectuals in the 60s. It’s functions were to destroy the old authoritarian order and to defend the destructive social consequences that resulted from the anti-authoritarian transformation of society.
Around the same time, the morality of conservatism and the Conservative Party appeared spontaneously from the political right. It’s rational functions were to conserve what was of value in the institutions of the old authoritarian order and to regain stability in social life by politically opposing the destructiveness of the left’s “progressivism.”
But, because of the transformation of society into anti-authoritarianism, the evil genie of social destructiveness (the emotional plague) was out of the bottle and there was nothing that any politician including those on the right could do to reverse the inevitable erosion in social, political and economic life brought on by the forces of the left: Without a doubt, it became clear that politics was not the answer to humanities problems and to its social pathology.

No matter how deafening the background noise is about the 2016 presidential campaign, the undercurrent that must be heard loud and clear through all the distractive clamor are the emotionally charged issues of morality. There is a deeper and more powerful political motive force behind all the political clap trap that is currently being presented on the social surface by the politicians, the pundits and the media.
Whether they know it or not, the presumptive candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are already lined up according to whether they believe in the old absolute morality of the past authoritarian world or in the new politically correct, relative morality of the current anti-authoritarian era.
These two moralities are entirely different ways of viewing and dealing with the world. They generate the ideological divide that unconsciously pits the political left and right against each other. Casting America into two irreconcilable, opposing groups, this social force from the human depths is the ultimate governor of people’s ideas and behavior. It must be consciously recognized, understood and resolved before social conditions can improve.

In order to know the reason for Donald Trump’s enormous popularity it is first necessary to understand that there has been an incessant shift leftward in American politics especially during the Obama Administration. Originating from the political right, the Trump Phenomenon is simply a reaction to this shift to the left. The core of truth in the Trump Phenomenon is that people are fed up with having the left’s morality of political correctness shoved down their throats and Trump is the one that has led the battle against it. No other politician has had the courage to face this scourge head on.

However, the problem with Trump is that, like every other politician, he has nothing else to offer except perhaps a desire to return to the “good old days”. But this is an illusion. The genie is out of the bottle in terms of the enormous levels of human destructiveness contained in people’s destructive secondary layer. This reality is why humanity’s problems are outside of the political realm and no politician has any clue about what they are or how to go about dealing with them. Not looking to politicians like Trump, Obama and others for answers would be a step in the right direction. Hopefully, it could lead to some people’s looking inward at themselves and not to politics.

When radicalization is ever discussed in the news it is always understood in terms of extremists on the right. But are there radicals on the left and if there are any, where are they? The answer is that they do exist but now they are in full view of everyone and are often placed in positions of great power such as candidates in the Democratic Party running for the office of president of the United States and the current President himself. Instead of being referred to for what they are, these radical leftists are now called “progressives” or “socialists.”

Radicals on the left are not identified for what they are because of the shift of the political mainstream to the extreme left of center. These radicals politically blend in imperceptibly with today’s social mainstream. The ever shifting leftward of society is supported and maintained by a new form of social armor that was instituted by leftists, the morality of political correctness.

The morality of political correctness appeared spontaneously following the transformation of society from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian beginning around 1960. This was the time when the breakthrough of human destructiveness on all levels of social life first intensified. With the weakening of the authoritarian family and of individual authority on a local level, absolute morality of right and wrong was replaced by the relative morality of political correctness and the collective authority of “Big Brother.” The authority of parents and of individuals was taken over by the authority of peer groups and of big government.

The appearance of the morality of political correctness “out of nowhere” is evidence that people need social armor in one form or another (absolute or relative morality) to contain the destructive forces within them for their personal and social survival.
However, there are qualitative and quantitative differences between the two moralities. Political correctness is more pernicious than the absolute morality of the past authoritarian era because it is restricted to the superficial and destructive layers of human life and therefore is clueless about the existence of good and of evil.

The morality of the past authoritarian society was based on the absolute distinction of right and wrong. The morality of today’s anti-authoritarian society is relative to social conditions. What is right and wrong for one person is not the same for everyone.This is the morality of political correctness.
Based on the morality of politically correctness that is endemic in our anti-authoritarian society, the traditional sexual roles of men and women have been turned upside down. Spearheaded by the anti-authoritarian, “gay” movements, the role reversal was accomplished by feminizing the social roles of men and masculinizing the social roles of women.
The function of the cultural role reversal is to deny once and for all the existence of biological differences between the sexes and, by so doing, to deaden the sexual excitement between them. It is a form of psychic castration in the social realm and another manifestation of the emotional plague of armored humans.
The last step in the politically correct agenda of the leftist ideologues is to legitimize the transgender movement by eradicating the primary role played by genital heterosexuality in determining human life.

There is a myth that is currently being passed around that from a political perspective there are two kinds of people in the world, those who are caring and want to help the less fortunate and those who care only for themselves. Today’s “carers” are thought to believe that human beings and social and environmental conditions can be improved through political legislation and programs. In today’s world, these carers are living up to an ideal of what a caring person should be. They see themselves as the “good guys” with good intentions and the know-how required to bring about world improvement. No longer called socialists, they are the “progressives” belonging on the political left. Since a large segment of the population, mainly Blacks and Hispanics, are emotionally too sick to care for themselves, they have a strong need to be cared for and therefore are attracted to these leftist do-gooders. The caring leftist politician and the cared for public form a powerful highly pathological political alliance. By contrast, in the past authoritarian era people simply cared. They did not wear their caring on their sleeves.

Conversely, people today who are not openly demonstrative of a concern for “the poor ” and showing no overt desire for social improvement are typically seen as uncaring, selfish, cold and only interested in personal benefit by those indoctrinated in the leftist dominated world view. They do not pretend to have solutions for social improvement except for a return to the ways of the past. This group is automatically categorized as the “bad guys”, those belonging on the political right. This commonly held myth of the political left is an example of armored (moralistic) thinking, the morality of political correctness. Injecting this idea of right and wrong, of good and bad, based on some personal arbitrary assumptions functions as a powerful ideological force in current mainstream thinking of the political left.

There have always been people who have wanted to be taken care of. Throughout their history, Americans have stood out in their ability to care for themselves. However, for the first time in American history, leftist politicians have stumbled on a way to successfully tap into the unconscious dependency needs of people from all social levels. These ideologues are promising the masses a material version of heaven on earth through their economic and social programs and, tragically, the mindless public is being taken in by it. Another layer of social armor in the form of denial is being placed over the social armor that is already there. This will make it more difficult than ever for people to see what is really happening right in front of their eyes.

From a sociological perspective, political correctness is defined as the distorted expression of Marxist ideas translated from economics into cultural terms. Since Marxists and other leftists live almost entirely from the destructive secondary and superficial layers of their bio-psychic structure, it follows that from a biological perspective political correctness is the expression of impulses and ideas originating from the destructive secondary layer that are made socially acceptable by passing through the superficial layer (the defensive use of intellect.)

An example of political correctness is given in the article, Muslims, Mormons and Liberals ( Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2012) by Bret Stephens. He describes the audience’s response of roaring laughter while watching Mormons being ridiculed and made the butt of obscene jokes in the Broadway Musical, “The Book of Mormons.” He contrasts this response to the liberal establishment’s denouncing of a video clip of a film, “Innocence of Muslims” which depicts slurs made against the Muslim religion. Leftists across America called the video “reprehensible and disgusting” and laid sole blame on it for inciting the rioting throughout most of the Muslim world . Stephens concludes that in the consensus of American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. He asks cogently, could it be because ” nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons?”

Without knowledge of socio-political characterology, Stephen’s question goes to the heart of the character structure of all leftists: Since they operate from their superficial layer (intellect), they have little or no ability to tolerate physical aggression from their core (which includes the voluntary musculature) and, therefore, they are terrified of and unable to forcefully stand up to the fascist Muslim uprisings on the Right. Instead, they respond passively by appeasing and placating them and, at the same time, they displace their unconscious hatred of Western authority onto benign institutions on the Right such as the Mormons who are not feared and are therefore seen as safe to attack.

This example is given to illustrate that in order to truly understand socio-political behavior and attitudes and what is going on in our sick world, an in-depth knowledge of the biologically based, emotional roots of socio-political characterology is essential.

When the truth cannot be expressed in seriousness because of individual or social armor, it can nevertheless be expressed in humor especially in politics. Clint Eastwood’s skit at the Republican National Convention last week that broke through the barrier of political correctness was a case in point. In it, Eastwood is conducting an imaginary interview with Barack Obama. Eastwood asks Obama to comment on some contentious issues involving his policies as President. We only know what Obama is saying from Eastwood’s response to it which is repeatedly said in his typically quiet, no-nonsense style: ” I can’t do that to myself.”

The audience’s response showed they understood the significance of the exchange. It not only gave a clear picture of Obama’s utter contempt for anyone who questions his policies but also his relentless determination to unilaterally carry them out.

In my book, The Emotional Plague, The Root of Human Evil, I characterize the pseudo-liberal/communist as someone who expresses his genital revenge against society through his intellect. This central aspect of Obama’s character and his defense against it, his churlishness when challenged, was clearly revealed in Eastwood’s humorous, imaginary interchange.

Natural morality originates from the biological core and is directly expressed through the surface undistorted by armor from the destructive middle layer.

The differences in the armored morality of the political right and the left has to do with how each group deals with their destructive middle layer and also with the anti-authoritarian transformation of Western society. During the authoritarian era (prior to around 1960) the predominant form of morality was authoritarian: From a biophysical standpoint, impulses originating from people’s biological core passed through their destructive middle layer and were expressed through the superficial layer. The amount of destructive middle layer that was contained in the moral impulse was proportional to how far the individual was to the political right of the socio-political spectrum. Because impulses passed from the core through the destructive middle layer, most people in those days were in contact with both layers and, as a result, the distinction between good and evil was easily discernible to them; Good and evil, right and wrong were moral absolutes. Americans were more united in seeing the good and the greatness of their country. They saw the evilness of both red and black fascism and the need to fight when necessary to preserve their freedom. In today’s anti-authoritarian era, these people belong somewhere to the right flank of the political spectrum.

With the anti-authoritarian transformation of society, an entirely different kind of morality has developed. Called political correctness, this morality is the result of a change in the functional relationship between the superficial and destructive middle layers in people’s bio-psychic structure. Now, the superficial layer including the intellect, is not in the service of expressing impulses from the core and middle layers as in the case of authoritarian morality but in defending against the perception of impulses from the core and destructive middle layers.

This change in the bio-psychic structure of armored humans accounts for the morality of political correctness. It is the morality of those belonging on the political left: For them, all moral thinking originates from the social surface since contact with the core and destructive middle layers is lost. They distance themselves from having contact with the deeper layers by their defensive use of intellectualism and by having contempt for core feelings. Morality that originates from the superficial layer becomes a relative principle. For example, a person’s intentions which originate from the superficial layer is the ever changing yardstick which is used to measure what is valued as good or bad. Moral relativism means that nothing is intrinsically good and nothing is intrinsically bad. Thus, for example, in the case of the green “save the earth” movement, people who are involved in it are the good “morally superior” ones. They are the progressive ones on the wave of the future compared to others who are not involved in this noble quest.

A new kind of collective morality is set in place to replace the old, individually based, authoritarian form. This new morality is an attempt to eliminate the problem of the destructive secondary layer by pulling energy up into the head and thereby cutting off contact not only with the secondary layers but also with the biological core. In doing so, it throws out the baby with the bath water. By getting rid of the biological core from where the emotions originate, this new morality helps to bring about the de-humanization of the human race.

Because the existence of the emotional plague is not recognized, every new attempt to deal with its ravages turns into another, even more destructive expression of the plague than the one before. Beginning around the 17th century, the liberal movement in Europe was an attempt to break away from the chains of Christian repression and mysticism that held people in bondage for over a thousand years. In the 21st century, this liberal movement has shifted far to the political left and has developed into pseudo-liberal/communism which is an anti-authoritarian form of secular repression. Pseudo-liberal/communism is the application of mechanistic mystical thinking to daily life in America. It is a far more invasive and deadly manifestation of the emotional plague than the authoritarian system that it has replaced.

Liberals function primarily from the superficial layer of their bio-psychic structure. Their mode of operation is through the use of their intellect in a defensive manner. to protect them from experiencing the destructiveness that is contained in their middle layer. From their defensive intellectualism originates the two other characteristics of the liberal syndrome, a mechanistic explanation of natural phenomena and a collectivistic attitude toward social living.

There are several important socio-political consequences to the liberal’s living, perceiving and thinking primarily from their superficial layer.

1) Since the liberal has no contact with his secondary layer, he also has little contact with his biological core. He therefore has no deep emotional sense of the existence of good and evil or of the emotional plague of mankind. This is the reason for his moral relativism and his believing that all human beings are essentially good and that even hardened criminals can be rehabilitated.

2) Living from the superficial layer, the liberal perceives everything from the surface. For example, the liberal physician looks at medical illnesses exclusively from the perspective of the superficial symptom or the immediate biochemical manifestations of the disease. Not capable of understanding the deeper biological causes of disease, his therapy is focused on eliminating the disturbing symptom. The liberal economist and politician does the same in the economic and political realms. The liberal sociologist has no sense that a social transformation of catastrophic proportions from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian that began around 1960 is rapidly undermining the stability of Western civilization.

3) Because the liberal’s defense against feeling is from his intellect and not his musculature, the liberal political leader relies heavily on his rational powers derived from his well developed intellect to deal with domestic issues and threats to national security. His fear of open aggression prevents him from being able to take a forceful aggressive stand and, by misleading our enemies to think of America as weak, is capable of putting this country and the world in mortal danger.

Political correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economics into cultural terms. When the morality of political correctness becomes firmly anchored in the superficial layer of the liberal individual’s bio-psychic structure, the liberal’s socio-political character rigidifies and changes into one of pseudo-liberal/communist. The individual functions as an emotional plague character. With the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in 2008, the pseudo-liberal/communist character entered the mainstream of American politics on the left and became legitimized.